IOWA, July 10 -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton traveled to this crucial caucus state today to assure voters that she would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future because "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."

You missed that news story? Me, too. It's not the message Clinton wanted to convey, and it's not the message that reporters took away from her speech.

But it would have been an accurate, if incomplete, rendition of her long address on Iraq policy. That she wanted to go on the record with such a view, but didn't want voters to really hear it, says much about the current Washington bind on Iraq policy.

"But toward the end, Clinton noted that it would be "a great worry for our country" if Iraq "becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is." So she would "order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." U.S. troops would also train and equip Iraqi forces "to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working." And she might deploy other forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, she said, "to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there."

In other words, Clinton ascribed to what might be called the consensus, Baker-Hamilton view: Pull out of the most intense combat but remain militarily engaged by going after terrorists, training and advising Iraqi troops, and safeguarding at least some regions or borders. It's the position set forth in the proposal of Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed and in the compromise proposal of Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar."

and there are plenty of foreign fighters in Iraq. It's quite possible that Iraq, especially the Shia controlled areas, will be able to deal with al queda. But, I don't think it unreasonable to keep a small number of troops in country (or nearby) to deal with them if the Iraqi government proves unable to do so, and that is what HRC (and most of the other candidates) are proposing.

ps - calling people "deluded" or "deliberately propagating lies" is not much of an argument and doesn't advance your POV in any kind of credible manner.

The Shia controlled areas have been able to keep al queda out, since al-queda is, for the most part, a Sunni organization. There is evidence that some Sunni tribes are rejecting al queda's influence. Perhaps the Iraqi government will be able to neutralize al-queda in Iraq. But it is in this country's self interest to make sure that what al queda was able to do in Afghanistan is not repeated in Iraq, even if that means keeping a specialized force ready to combat such a thing, IMO.

oh bullshit. Just repeat the same old and tired lies. We are an occupation force fighting an insurgency and there is a civil war which we provoked as well.

The polls never actually ask the question so that people can answer "no, get out now".

You are either deluded or propagating lies. Sorry, but after five years of listening to the deluded and the liars and the delusional liars tell me why we should continue killing Iraqis while occupying their nation I have lost patience and have no interest in avoiding hurting your feelings.

instead of trying to actually deal with a difference of opinion, you denigrate and deny.

Of course the occupation should be ended, and yes, we are fighting an insurgency in the middle of a civil war. We can't continue to do that. That doesn't mean, as a nation, that we can ignore the threat of transnational terrorism, and the very real possibilty that it could find a fertile breeding ground in a destabilized Iraq. And yes, our continued presence there is also contributing to the "breeding ground".

But none of that is counter to what Clinton (and most of the other candidates)are proposing.

I tend to trust Democratic Senators with close ties to the military, like Jim Webb on MTP, when they say that there are foreign fighters (mostly Saudis) and an al queda influence in Iraq.

------------

The difference between the Republican position of "fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here", and the positions I have outlined, is that the Republicans believe that the occupation is fighting them over there. That is clearly incorrect - in fact, the occupation is breeding more terrorists. The bulk of American troops need to be withdrawn, and the occupation needs to be ended. This does not preclude, however, the need to protect Iraq's borders from influences intent on destabilization, prevent al queda from gaining a foothold in a destabilized state, and helping to train the Iraq army so that it can defend Iraq from those influences. This is all HRC, (and most of the other Dem candidates have said basically the same thing), is saying in the OP.

-----------------------------

If it is your position that a country does not have a "right" to protect itself against an enemy that has declared they want to destroy you? And has shown an ability to carry out their threats?

Do you think it would have been ok for the US to take out Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan if that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks?

--------------------

You know, I have never supported this war and this occupation. But, I do realize we, as a nation, are going to have to deal with the ramifications of the Bush junta's actions. You want to make it simple - you want to cut the Gordian knot of Iraq with one single stroke. I think the situation is far to complex for that.

And you are just regurgitating the latest bullshit story on Iraq, the one that is once again deliberately conflating al qaeda and the attacks on 9-11 with the mess we created in Iraq. It is bullshit, and I don't care how much spackle webb has on his shoulders, or how many military clowns he is buddies with, he is full of it too.

This shit does not impress me:

Your position is one of support for continued occupation of Iraq. No matter how you try and pretend otherwise, that is your stated position here in this thread.

...in it's efforts to convince others of anything more than your own self-righteousness."

70% of Americans agree with the anti-war left now.

THEY WANT OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!

So I guess the statement you made is wrong, huh? Just like every other aspect of the Iraq war supported by the DLC.

The only self-righteous person here is you Paulk. How dare you presume to speak for the rest of us. You and your DLC brethren supported the war from the beginning, you opposed ending the war at every step, you supported the surge, you opposed pulling money for the mission, and now you have the temerity to attack a group of people (the anti-war left) who have been right all along, even now when 70% of Americans agree with us? You use talking points by the same people who got us involved in this stupid and destructive war and claim some superiority over us?

none of what you have written about my positions on this invasion, or my relationship with the DLC, (how did they get into this?), is even close. But, that also is a common tactic used by posters like yourself - to put words in people's mouthes, to ascribe positions to them that are false.

Your post illustrates everything that is wrong with this website, IMHO. I tried to have an honest conversation on this subject, defending a position that is a mainstream Democratic one, and the reward for my time and effort was insults and untruths.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

AS HE DETERMINES. How could Bush "violate" a law in which he alone is authorized to determine?

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether reliance on peaceful means was working. Surprise! Bush determined that diplomacy or other peaceful means were not adequate. Didn't see that coming!

invading.... within 48 hours. His stated reasons were Iraq's possession of WMD, and that Iraq was a threat to the national security of the USA. He knew both these things to be false. He lied. John Dean, among others, has maintained that this alone is grounds for impeachment. I think it is, too.

I would call that violating the terms of the IWR.

And besides, the Bush admin. always maintained that they didn't need the IWR or Congress's approval to invade Iraq.

It was a cut and paste of Section 3b.His stated reasons contained in the letter did not mention WMD and didn't need to.He was authorized to use force if he determined that peaceful means were insufficient to "protect the US and enforce UNSC resolutions".Since it was solely his determination, how could he possibly violate it?

His stated reasons were an exact copy of 3b, approved by Congress:

"reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush delivered the letter on time to Congress as required. Section 3b of the AUMF was all he ever needed.

It is true that Bush would have attacked without the AUMF. He could have used a National Security Directive.The Congress should have denied authorization and forced the NSD.That way it would be Bush's war, instead of an attack authorized by Congress.

to her Neocon/DLC support. She couched her words and make her stand election safe but does not come out for international troops as peace keepers because she has to keep her RW, Rupert Murdoch, and Neocons happy with the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" weasel words. In other words, if she becomes president, she will be Bush-Lite and the bloodletting will continue. She maight even initiate a "national service" draft. I pray for Gore to jump into the race. Only he can stop the H.C. momentum and resolve the Mideast conflict for peace.

8. not after april 75. but during after the paris "peace accords" the us

continued its genocidal policies by bombing Vietnam, and it did have troops on the ground. they left after the u.s. puppet regime in the south was completely overwhelmed. a wonderful defeat of u.s. imperialism. let it happen again.

Anyone who wants us to stay in the middle of it is a fool.And even leaving a "residual" force is dangerous.We are NOT wanted there,and any presence,large or small,will continue to cause us trouble and make us less safe,not more.

Our "national interests" means oil,plain and simple.If it's not,and we're worried about terrorism,it seems that our presence is sparking a hell of a large backlash against us,one that would surely be lessened if we were not in the region militarily.

So far,no candidate can have a foolproof plan for Iraq because there is no such thing.We have only bad options to choose from,and we need to bite the bullet sooner rather than later on this.All the plans are a matter of guess work.I think Hillary's idea (and she's not alone in it) is a dangerous one,as is anyone's who thinks we need to stay.

Now,having said all of that,we shouldn't put too much stock in any op-ed,especially ones that features the phrase "almost doesn't say" in it's headline.

Too bad W tried to do the same thing and invaded Iraq to prove that he had balls. It is costing us $12 billion a month and too many lives of young Americans. Two from my little town (Tipton, Iowa) already. Now we know that W has no balls and no brains.

39. Does he mention it during debates when he claims he will end the war?

Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 01:40 AM by draft_mario_cuomo

Richardson and Kucinich are for ending the war. Edwards will also end offensive military operations in Iraq, unlike HRC and BO. The only troops he would keep in Iraq are those at the embassy (standard for any American embassy) and perhaps a few to protect humanitarian workers. HRC and BO want to keep troops for an unspecified amount of time to train Iraqi forces, conduct military offensives, etc.

41. And why do progressives despise Hillary's thinking? Bill told her the facts

Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 03:59 AM by GreenTea

Bullshit BushCo terrorism will keep the people fearful...and she must go along to get elected, that she must be on & offering more to the corporate edge along with the sickening DLC...The republicans and their media want her as their poster girl and want her so much as the Dem nominee...and feel shes a slam dunk to continue the fascism for the republican party, ....You must know the republicans always get the weakest Dem candidates nominated...You think the filthy republicans are just sitting around each day...and hoping? NO!...They are working it, each and every day!

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.